Yes, and I understand that that's basicly what's being done, but with some changes to customise their setup to ours (which makes sense).

Okay, sitting at lunch in the middle of the talk. Mood here is interesting, there's a lot of questions being asked and some new data coming out. Fuller posts later, but the teaser is that there are two new draft SIs released here that cover the club and range guidelines, the misc provisions bill has been discussed (but won't be released, the dail gets to see it first - it's close to that point, but being held up by the workload of the dail) the range certification process has been laid out, there's been a fair bit of exchange on the topics of how handguns have been represented in the media and by the Minister, and ISSF shooting is like watching paint dry

(Hey, I like watching paint dry, it's relaxing)

More to follow later this afternoon or evening with the two draft SIs.

Why does it always come down to me in my speedos?

Anyway, back home from the conference now, I'm just going to grab a cup of tea and then more post.

*slurpppp!*

Okay, so an interesting day all told. Kickoff was at 10, and by my count somewhere between 40 and 50 people attended from all over. There were some notable absences - Des Crofton was in Brussels, for example - but by and large attendance was good.

The running order was:

• Welcome and opening by Garrett Byrne (DoJ)
• Firearms Policy Unit update by Superintendent Fergus Healy (FPU)
• The Range Authorisation Legislation: the old and the new by Sgt.Paul Greene (FPU)
• The Range Certification Process by John Guinane (FRI)
• The Garda Practitioners view of the Authorisation Process by Superintendent Aidan Glackin (from Athlone)
• Closing by Lyall Plant (CAI)

And there was time built into that for Q&A, though as always, you couldn't build in enough time for all the Q&A you'd like if you did nothing but Q&A all day long.

Garrett opened proceedings with the attached presentation and stressed the focus of the seminar, which was Section 33 of the CJA2006; that's the stuff that deals with certifying and authorising ranges, it'll be section 4A of the Firearms Act when everything gets signed in. He pointed out that there were two SI's in their draft stages (I've attached the club SI, the range SI is too large so I've uploaded it to here (which is what took so long). Folks, while these are late drafts, they are still just drafts - submissions can still be taken on them and they may still change, more on that later). The first SI covers shooting clubs and the second covers shooting ranges, and while those two areas have been muddled in the past, they're now introducing clean delineation between the two.

Garrett gave a brief update on the work of the FCP, pointing out that today is the culmination of the work of one of the several FCP subgroups who've been working away since the setting up of the FCP. A lot of legislative stuff is still being held up - the Misc Provisions bill is being tied up behind the Immigration Bill, for example - so things aren't as far along as had been hoped. There was also mention of the Ministers comments in November. It's hoped the Misc Bill will be out shortly.

The FCP was lauded as a success - there had been lots of mutual education which was easing the transition to a coherent system of firearms legislation, but more importantly, it was keeping open lines of communication by providing a forum for discussion.

Upcoming legislation was briefly discussed, the 3 year licence is due in this year, with outsourced fee collection; the Misc Provisions bill should go to the Dail shortly (we can't be shown this ahead of that point, the Dail has to be the first place it's released, otherwise you're showing contempt to the Oireachtas). It was stated however that the bill will, amongst other things, ban 'action shooting' and introduce controls on airsoft.

The Ministers November statement was then discussed. Garrett pointed out that as we've known for some time, it's hard to get good publicity for shooting sports. The events since christmas with the robberies of RFDs shows this. The Minister's view on this was that he was very concerned with the licencing situation at present and that the Charleton judgement was seen as the first 'sensible' judgement from the courts on the matter. The Minister, the Secretary-General of the DoJ and the Garda Commissioner all have strong views on the matter. The tide has turned to debating firearms ownership philosophy in Ireland. A tighter system of regulation was presented as being better for shooters in the long run, as a defence against those who would point to shootings in other jurisdictions (as we could say they couldn't happen under our, stricter, system).

Practical shooting was said to have been an attempt to go 'too fast too quickly', and it was felt the IPSA's decision to wind up had been the mature one for them to take under the circumstances.

Planning permission for ranges was then touched on, long enough for Garrett to make the point that the DoJ has no influence on the matter, that it's seperate from their aegis, and just because we satisfy all the DoJ/Garda/FRI requirements, does not mean we will be granted planning permission.

At that point Garrett wound up his introduction and handed over to Supt.Healy for his presentation.

When I say somewhat pointed, by the way, I don't mean people started throwing chairs; but there was definitely a degree of hostility there that we didn't see at the last FCP meeting. Personally speaking, I think that it was understandable given the ****e that the Minister came out with in November, but I think the hostility (the comments were fine, they get reported up the line) was really aimed at the wrong people. Garrett Byrne, John Guinane, they're professional civil servants who have to follow Ministerial policy regardless of their personal feelings on the matter; and the Gardai are similarly bound both to the law and to the direction of the Commissioner. To be honest, yelling at these people over the Minister's comments is like yelling at the 17-year-old on the front desk in McDonalds because McDonalds don't serve falafel. (Go ahead, call me a suck-up, it's still a valid point).

Anyway.

Things started off calmly enough. The first concerns raised in Q&A were over club membership concerns, specifically about 1-day memberships, temporary memberships, notifying the super of people leaving, and so on. The FPU's concern here is that they don't want people joining for a day to get a licence then sodding off to never be heard from again.

The question of not allowing disentitled people to be members came up and saw no real resolution that I could see. I personally was wondering what the story was with regard to club members who don't shoot and never will (we have a lot of juniors whose parents have helped out in the club but don't shoot themselves, and without them we'd be stuffed). I got no real answer here, but did later on from John Guinane - if you have an authorisation under 2.4(d) through your local superintendent (like the college clubs), then none of this stuff applies. It only applies to those going through section 4A, which will probably be 95% of the clubs in the country. For those, John suggests that the club have two memberships - shooting and non-shooting (they have this in several clubs up north, like Comber). So we'd need to restructure, and we'd need to have a chat with our insurance people, but it's not the end of the world (personally, I'd still like to see this changed in the SI to save the trouble, and that might still happen, I hope).

The question of what sanctions would be laid against the club if a disentitled person shot there using a club gun was raised (the club might not know that shooter was disentitled). The FPU will handle an incident like that on a case-by-case basis.

At this point, the heated stuff started, with a question on how handguns could be seen to 'taint' the sport (something Garrett had mentioned earlier as part of the Minister's view on things). Garrett pointed out that the media coverage as well as the trends in crime of late was the taint being referred to.

The next question was the blunt 'will we have our guns next year?'. Garrett laid out that the key to safeguarding everything was securing public opinion on our side, and pointed out that having done so before the events at the end of last year would have helped enormously.

The question was then restated, again bluntly, as the questioner didn't feel it had been answered. Both the FPU and GB responded, the consensus being that handguns were the primary concern of the DoJ&Gardai, that the vast majority of the shooting community are known to be highly responsible but that handguns are a major concern because of their use in crimes of late. The point was made that all licence holders are targets for criminals because of their firearms ownership, but the handgun owners are more at risk than rifle or shotgun owners.

The next question was one we've asked here and in PQs repeatedly: how many licenced handguns are used in crimes. The answer from the FPU was that there was no evidence that they were used in crimes, but that the FPU regardless knows that they have been used in crimes.

The next question was that given how handguns used in crime were smuggled in with drugs and such, why should legitimate owners be penalised? The FPU responded that there are 1800 licenced handguns and a lot of crimes and that therefore handguns are a concern.

The next question was what the commissioner felt about the new SIs and how they improved security. GB made the point that all of these SIs were coming from an imperfect place, that the situation now is one set by acts and court cases and not discussion or debate - he found the idea of some of what's in the SIs to be suboptimal, that they could have been handled in a better way. He made the point that he felt it would now be getting harder and harder to get a licence for a handgun. He also made the point that they had received a lot of feedback and comments on the Ministers comments last year (emails, faxes, letters, phone calls, messages from TDs following from them meeting shooters and so on) and that it was taken notice of in the Department.

The next question (and a few after) wasn't really a question, but a statement that we shouldn't be tied to criminal abuse of firearms, that the new legislation was over the top, and that we felt we had a right to own a firearm.

The next question was on the topic of authorisations allowing the exchange of firearms on a range and on club pistols, but this was felt to be more to do with ranges than with clubs and we'd handle range stuff in the afternoon session so it was deferred.

It was then asked if a club member applied for a licence for a handgun (already having one for something else) and was refused, did he then have to be asked to leave the club? Or would he have to leave if he joined, learnt to shoot on a club pistol, then applied for one of his own and was refused? On the former, it was thought he was fine; but on the latter, it was said he should be asked to leave, as shooting clubs shouldn't have members who don't shoot. This was taken exception to on the grounds that there's a difference between a refusal and a revocation, but no progress was made on that issue.

The next statement was that the Nov19 statement by the Minister was an insult to all shooters and that the Minister should make a formal statement that either the problem is solved with these SIs and that he has confidence in our sport; or that there still is a problem and to lay it out in detail. (Given that the Minister can't be bound to that by a civil servant of any rank, there wasn't any response, oddly enough :rolleyes: Seriously folks, I get the idea, I think it'd be super-cool-peachy-keen for it to happen, but you need to talk to the boss, not the employees on this)

It was asked if Removal Orders could be done away with under the new SI. After a brief moment of explaining what one was, the answer was that there was no proposal to do that on the table from anyone.

It was asked if the Garda Commissioner would, following these SIs, promote our sport as safe and responsible to the Minister. The response was that there was no evidence that licenced handguns were being used in crime, with very strong emphasis on the distinct phrase "we have no evidence", and a clear implication that the FPU still believes it is happening. (And asking a garda of any rank other than Commissioner to commit the Commissioner to a course of action did seem like being on a hiding to nowhere, even more so than asking a civil servant to commit the Minister to something)

At this point, time was running short and we had one presentation left before lunch, so John Guinane halted the Q&A and we went on with his presentation.

I don't think lunch warrants much comment! (though thanks Lyall for lunch, and next time, can I pay the extra fiver on my CAI insurance so we get the chocolate cake for dessert? )

After lunch, we had Superintendant Aidan Glackan on the viewpoint of the garda practitioner, who began by stating that most of the difficulties we have are down to legislation which doesn't match the environment. The FCP is helping in this regard, along with the FPU. He made the side point that a lot of money is wasted by doing range work without consulting the gardai at the moment. He made the point that shooters are generally highly invested, with high expectations and that the acknowleged lack of consistency between districts leads to a lot of fustration.

He continued, covering topics of possession and carriage - what they referred to, what the gardai were in effect agreeing to when they granted the licence and what concerns they have in that regard. He also made the point that it was a fact that licenced firearms owners were a target for criminals. He also stressed the importance of good management in clubs, and he finished up by saying that the new legislation will benefit shooter and gardai alike (it was a short presentation).

At that point, the floor was reopened for questions, which would continue until the closing.

The first question was when the SIs would be enacted. GB said that both are in late draft stage, with the clubs SI closer to the end line - it's expected it will be signed at the end of March, so last comments had to be in by about next Friday (comments were limited though, as the scope of the clubs SI is bound by section 33 of the CJA2006). The Ranges SI will follow later on.

It was asked if restricted firearms could be authorised as club firearms; no real consensus was reached, though the point was strongly made that if they couldn't be, noone could ever be safely trained on them using a club gun (the training licence was mentioned here, but it's not a satisfactory solution obviously). No consensus was reached though, because it was pointed out by one of the FCP members that the part of the SI talking about club guns and the restricted list is about storage on the range only, not use.

Reloading was asked about, whether the Misc bill would cope with it. JG replied that Section 40 of the CJA2006 (that's the bit that puts in section 10A in the firearms act, allowing reloading) won't in fact be implemented, it will actually be revoked and reloading will be handled under a rewrite of the Explosives Act, probably in April or May. This raised an eyebrow, prompting the point that propellant is not an explosive. JG pointed out that he's not just the Firearms Range Inspector, but also the government inspector of explosives, and that propellant is defined legally as an explosive even though it technically isn't one (this is like the definition of "assault rifle" in the restricted list not being our definition of one). He said that as it was legally an explosive, it had to be looked after in the explosives act, which is being rewritten and will hopefully be out later this year.

John also said that submissions on reloading had been sought since last year, and so far only one had been sent in. He made the point that it's not too late, they'll accept submissions from anyone. Again, speaking personally, guys, what the ****? How can everyone be complaining about the stupid rules on reloading, but only one person actually sent anything in? Gah!

The next question was on monitored alarms and whether or not they're really the best option for security - the response from the FPU was that while there are those who disagree, they had to pick a standard for everyone and the consensus was that monitored alarms were the best general option.

The final question wasn't; it was a statement of thanks to the FCP and FPU and DoJ and CAI for organising the day; but for the FPU/DoJ people to go back to the Minister and Commissioner and remind them that not only were we safe and not a security concern, but also of how much the shooting industry contributes to the exchequer through licence fees, taxes of various kinds and so forth.

And that finally did conclude the seminar, we all said our goodbyes, collected documents and headed home. It wasn't quite as relaxed as the first FCP conference last year, but I guess that was to be expected with all the recent problems we've had with the Minister and the media and so on. I still think the FCP's the best shot we have here though; keeping folks talking is the only way to stop something more damaging from happening.

No worries John.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Thanks for posting all this Sparks,It makes for well intresting reading.
However it is not surprising that things would get heated if anyone got such evasive and daft answers as that!!

Thing is, we have rules (in the consititution) that say that a civil servant follows the Minister's direction; not the other way round. Mandarins aren't meant to set policy. I don't think GB really would agree with the Minister's line on all this, but he's a paid professional, he doesn't get to bring his personal opinion to the table.
I'm not saying the line is right, you understand - I'm just saying we ought to yell at the guy responsible, not the guy who gets stuck out front to take the flack for someone who doesn't show up on the day, y'know?

The FPU comments are downright alarming!!!

I though so myself, but not for the same reason you just listed - I mean, to say 'I have no evidence... but it's happening' from a garda, well 'evidence' has a pretty specific meaning in their world, doesn't it?

How will a criminal know wether anyone is a handgun owner or shotgun owner?

I can think of at least three or four ways (the envelopes in the mail last august, being seen in the Irish Shooters Digest, being seen getting your licence renewed at the garda station, being seen going to the local range, etc, etc, etc).
How is not quite so important as what happens next in such a case.
Personally though, I don't buy it - there's far less risk in just buying a firearm. RFDs might be different - the concentration of guns in one place makes the cost/benefit ratio better for the criminal - but for ordinary shooters?

And the final one..practical shooting was too far too soon,and that it was a "mature" decision of the IPSA to close up!!!Well, thats sort of saying to a suspected witch in the Witch hunts of the middle ages.Twas wise that thou didst confess to being a witch.Saves all the nasty torture and stuff..Come along to the stake that we can burn thy body and redeem you!!:rolleyes::(
So we are not able to discern between a sport or real combat training???Well, guess all that "evidence" of bodygaurd training etc is now totally unnecessary.But then again that sounded like somthing of the FPU evidence that legal handguns are used crime.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I'm not going to comment on that (I'm somewhat under-qualified I think) but I think there's more than one person here who could comment on both sides of that.

Rovi wrote: »

Thanks for all that Sparks, that's a hell of a lot of typing!

Thank the nuns in St.Davids Rovi, they still believed the best thing to teach kids to prepare them for working in a modern world was touch-typing on manual typewriters...
...only took me two broken keyboards to learn how not to punch through a computer keyboard and all!

Erm, does this refer to the Minister, or to a prominent person in shooting politics who just happened to find something more important to be doing in Brussels for the day?

Gosh, that's awful cynical of you Rovi, I couldn't possibly comment
But I did actually mean the Minister - I'm sure Des and GB get on well, but GB's not contractually obligated to defend Des